About Cal Skinner

We Hate Spam!

We have recently instituted a system of spam control that helps keep the McHenry County Blog a lean, mean information machine. A side product of this process is that in certain cases you might be blocked or challenged to prove that you aren't a robot in order to comment on articles.

If for some reason the automated processes that are in place to prove that you are a human do not work, or if you have any other technical problems with the blog, please email techguy at any time for speedy resolution.

The chickens finally came home to roost today in the Edgar County Watchdogs’ (publisher of Illinois Leaks) Freedom of Information suit against the Algonquin Township Road District.

It is costing taxpayers $55,000, $15,000 more than if the Algonquin Township Board had paid the bill in October, when Road Commissioner Andrew Gasser explained the settlement his attorney
Robert Hanlon had negotiated on his behalf.

Yesterday, Associate Judge Thomas Meyer ordered the bank to turnover of the funds.

Karen Lukasik

Today Illinois Leaks attorney Denise Ambroziak will go to the American Community Bank to get the $55,000 check resulting from the failure of Algonquin Township Clerk Karen Lukasiks’ the eight failures to provide answers to Freedom of Information requests.

Because the Algonquin Township Board took no action in October, even though being told them the cost would go up $5,000 for each month’s delay, the price escalated.

Attorney’s fees are included in the settlement figure, although state law says they could be levied separately.

In the only other high profile FOIA suit, the one filed by Peter Gonigam (First Electric Newspaper) against Sheriff Keith Nygren for the report on Undersheriff Andrew Zinke, Gonigam received $5,000, while his attorney, Mary Gardner, received $104,000.

Stephen what is to protect Alg Township from their own inept and remiss board??

Kelly should have (and may have) advised useless slug Lukasik to do her job and honor those FOIAs but something tells me her sole purpose for even running for Clerk was to help keep Bob and Anna Mae Miller and Klan’s secrets from their long and unethical rein!

Taxpayers lose again!

But at least they know that they should clean house and get rid of the whole lot of them.

Quo warranto is used to test a person’s legal right to hold an office, not to evaluate the person’s performance in the office.

For example, a quo warranto action may be brought to determine whether a public official satisfies a requirement that he or she resides in the district; or whether a public official is serving in two incompatible offices.

Quo warranto is not available to decide whether an official has committed misconduct in office.

A person who commits misconduct in a public office may be penalized or even removed from office, but quo warranto is not the proper forum for those cases.

This brings to mind something off topic of this article but more to do with Quo Warranto- what’s the latest with Grafton Township’s Hwy Commissioner Tom Poznanski and the full time job he has with IDOT?

“All the attorney general candidates are hopeful that they can do more to address public corruption, even without changing state law. For example, Harsy said he believes that an existing law called the Quo Warranto Act gives him the power to fire county state’s attorneys who are not “properly enforcing anti-corruption laws.” Quo warranto is Latin – or lawyer speak – for “by what warrant” and the act, common across the country, sets up a process to test a person’s legal right to hold an office. While Illinois’ act does give the attorney general the power to start that process, we know of no attempts to use the act in the way Harsy describes.”

The citizen can file a Petition for Writ of Mandate to a court to enforce an action required by law. The applicant must state his name (or his organization’s name), date, court with jurisdiction, legal decision case citation and any other writs concerning this action. The applicant must identify his interest in this matter.

The petitioner must state why the actions of a court or administrator violate the law, clearly state which law is applicable. Show why the actions are mistaken, unlawful, fraudulent or unfair.

Applicants must describe the remedy or relief they are seeking under the Writ of Mandate. The citizen can suggest which type of mandamus should be issued also. Using words, such as “just,” “proper” and “lawful” is standard practice.

Stephen do you have any clue how many law suites we have been involved in and resulted in not one penny of monetary value to our organization but did, in fact, change the way public bodies do business?

There is no need for us to file a writ as I suspect that will come from the Road District.

Our OMA case in Clark county cost us over $10K and although the lower court ruled against us, the Appellate court ruled in our favor 3:0, making our case new case law on OMA matters regarding agendas.

That case was settled by them paying $9K if I recall, less than what we had in it.

You can continue to push your false narrative if you like but rest assured it is just that, a false narrative.

I said, LuKasik needs a writ of mandamus action to force her to do her job.

Do you know what her statutory duties are?

That is all a writ can address.

A writ is directly tied to statutory duties for the Clerk and the statute for her duties says NOTHING about FOIA.

The Clerk needs a writ for her failure to perform her duties outlined in the statute and I suspect that will be next from either the Road District or a taxpayer as she is not complying with her obligations under the law.

FOIA is an appointed position and violations of FOIA have ONLY the remedies listed in that law and a Writ is not one of them.

False narrative – we did not get $55K of taxpayer money as the attorney has to be paid.

If you are so concerned about the dollar figures, why not go to a meeting and demand the FOIA officer do their job and stop farming it out to Kelly who has billed a fortune for a job most other public bodies handle internally.

It appears you just need a target to be pissed at.

If it makes you feel better making our organization that target then so be it.

Again, no circle jerk false narrative. I could care less about your costs. You incur them. We seem to have to pay them. What specifically do we get. You talk in circles about what you do. What specifically did we get. Simple question. Again the writ of mandamus would not have gotten you a payout. False narrative? You got a payout of 55,000. Fact. All you do is circle jerk the narrative with BS. You just find it unbelievable that some isn’t buying into the BS.

You point to an incompetent board, attorney, etc. and say they all need to go.

How did you come to that conclusion?

It sure wasn’t from reporting done by the NWH on the Township as their focus has been the Road District.

Algonquin Township is informed of the facts with documents to back them up so that the next time they go to the polls they don’t do it with such little information.

People make better choices when informed.

You also now have a LOT of people reading the law and applying it to Township actions.

That is a good thing.

While you insinuate I find it unbelievable that someone isn’t buying into what you call BS, let me be clear.

You appear to be the one that finds it unbelievable that anything good has come from the work we have done.

While I understand you will never accept that, there are quite a few folks sending us messages all the time thanking us for what we do, both in Algonquin Township and throughout the rest of the state and several other states.

Stephen, am I to understand that since we have yet to write about Lutzow and the bank issue you take that to be hypocritical?

If so, maybe you should get all the facts before taking such a position.

How many accounts was the money put into?

Why did the bank REFUSE to cooperate and insist on denying any funds belonging to the Road district existed, when we now know they knew damn good and well they had funds.

So far the Township has yet to produce the resolution for the transfer of such funds from one bank to another.

They have also not yet produced the bank statements that we asked for.

Nore have they produced the mandator documentation required under the Illinois Investment act.

So while you take a position I am a hypocrite for not writing about Lutzow, know that I am actually trying to gather all the facts so that the whole truth can be shared, just as I did with the BS Salt issue.

Sorry if that bothers you.

Also, while I don’t believe a judge would ever award money in this case, I do believe they will confirm a violation of law took place and force Lutzow to correct it.

Had Lutzow followed the law, to begin with, none of this would be taking place.